How much are our opinions of automobiles shaped by the fundamental aspects of mechanicals and architecture versus less concrete aspects of engineering, such as fine tuning of chassis settings and design? If you place more weight on these latter factors, you’d do well to make an example of the Volvo 850, a car which was tuned and shaped to emulate its evergreen predecessors.

Despite marketing campaigns which touted the new 850 as a sporty, new-age Volvo, the focus remained on the company’s excellent fundamentals: packaging efficiency, stability, comfort, and, of course, safety. While competitive power and dynamic abilities helped the new car helped shed the company’s dull-but-worthy image, it’s worth remembering that its predecessors weren’t exactly clumsy handlers, despite their reputation.

Being a small manufacturer in countries with high labor costs, new platforms were seldom seen, and any stodgy reputation Volvos may have acquired had more to do with use of sometimes old technology and a somewhat stodgy buyer demographic, but as many enthusiasts can tell you, the big, boxy sedans can be quite a bit of fun. It’s ironic when you consider that the “new, sporty” 850 shifted to a front-drive platform which erased some of this inherent virtue, but forced further and further upmarket, Gothenburg needed to establish and promote a more overtly dynamic image, so the 850 was thus advertised in the “sports sedan” mould.

In reality, the new car was a reimagined version of its predecessors, using entirely new architecture. In one of the biggest undertakings for Sweden’s industry as a whole, let alone Volvo, a new platform was launched with a new drivetrain. No more red block, no more rear wheel drive. Overcoming so much inertia isn’t cheap and ended up taking a bit away from the expected updating of the 700 series cars over their lifetime, until the decision was made to incorporate a number of the 850’s design features into what became the 940 and 960.

The need for a fundamentally new car was nevertheless a major issue that management and engineering saw coming for a long time. Volvo began Galaxy, a simultaneous project to replace the 200, 700 and 300 series cars, after the fuel crises of the ‘70s. The decision was made early on to rely on a front-drive platform and the smaller of the Galaxy cars was designed with a goal weight of 2000 lbs and target efficiency of 35 mpg and became the 440/460/480. The other–initially held to a 2500 pound, 30 mpg target–became the 850. As the ‘80s wore on, these targets were revised and the result was the over-3000 lb P1 platform.

Despite its enhanced size, this was at its heart a somewhat modest car designed to be sold as primary transport for thousands of families in a home market unlike that of the United States, where the car would follow in the 700-series’ footsteps as somewhat of a status symbol. Maintaining the marque’s core competencies almost by definition required an ordinary suspension. The need for a large cabin and ample crush space made bulky and/or complex multi-link systems ill-suited to the main design goals. The expected MacPherson struts held up the front end while a modified torsion beam located the rear wheels. Volvo touted the predictable handling offered by a beam axle’s constant camber, but it’s more likely the need to conserve space and cost was a bigger consideration. Not that it was of fundamental importance when many front-drive nameplates established a reputation for excellent ride and handling even with a simple rear suspension design (good handling is all in the fine tuning of geometries, spring rates, damping and bushing compliance).

For good measure, Volvo nevertheless split the rear axle diagonally, allowing rear wheels to articulate individually over pavement imperfections. Despite all the fanfare over the new configuration, called Delta Link, no other car has adopted a similar arrangement. More noteworthy was the 850’s continuation of of its forebears’ uncanny turning radii; while a longitudinally mounted engine and narrow tires made this an easy accomplishment in the past, an entirely new innovation was called for, and early on in the Galaxy program, a new three-shaft gearbox was devised. In designing a car simultaneously big enough for the American market and able to navigate older European cities, this trait could not be compromised and with a wide transverse drivetrain, the resulting 33.5 foot turning circle was a genuine achievement.

Hooked to this was an entirely new engine. The decision to use an aluminum block was made early on, around the same time that Volvo was using of the unloved alloy PRV V6 in its bigger cars. While Volvo (perhaps thankfully) never made use of that French engine’s four-cylinder “Douvrin” relatives, powertrain collaboration between the two companies was strong, making Gothenburg’s turn to Porsche all the more surprising when devising a way to replace its famed, high nickel content, iron block B-engine. With a strong upper-midrange and solid pull even without a turbo, it was one of the new car’s high points, and the major break from its predecessors in terms of character.

Naturally aspirated versions in particular were notable for their smooth, sonorous and even exotic exhaust note. Informally dubbed the “white block,” its modular design (allowing four, five and six cylinder configurations) was a basic necessity for perpetually cash-strapped Volvo, who used it in their larger and smaller car lines. As the company’s bread and butter, though, the 850 was also sold in Europe in two-liter variants, some with a 10-valve head, in addition to the 20-valve, naturally aspirated 2.4 and turbocharged 2.3 liter configurations seen in the US. As we see, the 850 was expected to be a jack of all trades, doing duty against the likes of the BMW 5-series in some markets and the VW Passat in others, while being like neither.

The 850 won’t ever match the 700/900 series as my favorite Volvo, and to me, the 200-series delivers fun beyond its cloying anti-car image (both offer good road feel and are a few modifications away from genuine performance), but it is easily one of the most impressive out of the box. The early-to-mid nineties was the heyday of the Japanese entry-level luxury in the US market, an era when all the efforts undertaken in engineering out NVH and designing elaborate quad-cam V6s were met with near universal approval, before decontenting and aggressively promoted German compact executive sedans took away their shine. In this context, the 850 stood out as a car designed with much greater care and consideration for fundamental Volvo values, with superior passive safety, interior packaging and comfort, while simultaneously offering better, decidedly European road manners and, in turbo form, class-leading performance. It’s rare that such a small car company so successfully fulfill the task of creating a sedan meant to be all things to all people.

Some questionable interior plastics, mediocre fuel consumption and an occasionally lumpy ride announced very clearly that this was still a Volvo, with all the same vices and virtues the name implied. That impression was carried through to the handling. While the 200/700 understeered a lot for RWD cars, the 850 was better balanced than a lot of the large front-drive competition. There was no mistaking it for a rear-drive sedan, and Volvo wasn’t interested in the sort of throttle-adjustability that characterized the likes of the Peugeot 405, but next to cars like the front-wheel drive Audi 100 or Saab 9000, it was more than competitive. Unlike the live-axle sedans it replaced, there was no hammering over potholes, but as a front-drive car, of course, firmer settings were required in front than in a rear-drive sedan. The different balance along with the inability to let all the power loose in a tight turn constituted the most significant dynamic differences between the 850 and the rear-drive cars it replaced (in stock form), but all in all, a remarkable job was done keeping the established Volvo feel intact.

Like a good Volvo, the 850 made the best impression in its most evolved, turbocharged forms. If Volvo always had a hot-rod streak, their newest sedan showed they were finally ready to make the most of it. Introduced in 1994, the blown 2.3 made the most of the car’s sport-sedan pretensions, with 222 horsepower, large 16-inch meat-slicer alloys and a rather firmly sprung suspension. Sixty was achieved in seven seconds flat, despite very tall ratios in the four-speed automatic that saw 44 mph in first gear, 84 mph in second, and 127 in third, but much more telling were its 147 mph top speed and very quick passing times. The 850 T5-R and 850R turned up the boost and were fitted with a genuinely stiff suspension and aggressive rolling stock, but the limitations of the 850’s architecture and the company’s insistence on safe at-the-limit behavior meant they would never threaten an M3 on a twisty road. Volvo’s family-friendly modesty was a difficult thing to overcome.

Like the 700-series before it, the 850 was designed by Jans Wilgaard as a wagon first, and a sedan second. Unlike the 700, however, aerodynamics were (finally) a consideration when penning the new sedan’s shape. As a car meant for a long production life, dramatic design was not a priority, even if there was a certain athleticism conveyed by the fender flares and tall deck. Volvo was at a financial low point upon the 850’s introduction in 1991, but a facelift was executed for 1994, the car’s third year on the market (second year in the US). One might wonder if the narrower headlights, and redesigned fascias and taillights were planned for a year earlier, but Volvo had enough trouble getting the Turbo and wagon variants online without having to worry about an early update. That makes our featured car a rather rare sight, with wagons and post-facelift sedans being much more common.

Ultimately, although the 850 was hailed as a major change for Volvo, a more appropriate way to think about the car would be to compare it with GM’s switch from the B-body to the H-body. It was an honest, well-engineered effort which found success in the marketplace, but much like GM’s premium sedans, it came to market soon before rear-wheel-drive cars began making a comeback. With Volvo’s distinctly premium image, this proved to be a problem in later years and all the while, Gothenburg remained cash strapped. Ford assumed stewardship of the company just as the 850 was facelifted and renamed in preparation for its replacement by the even more luxurious P2 platform-based successors, which in this author’s opinion, were much less impressive. They lost the 850’s superior turning radius and gained ZF’s famously numb Servotronic power steering while packing on width and weight, thus also losing their predecessor’s impressive packaging efficiency.

In the meantime, the sedan variant (now the S60) was shrunk in a misguided attempt to create a 3-series competitor and soon turned into lease fodder. The V70 wagon, which still offered a fair amount of utility, continued to sell until its redesign in 2008, which apparently left buyers cold. If Volvo’s sales to well-heeled, private customers had always been a source of redemption, much of this audience was jumping ship to crossovers, or premium small sedans. It didn’t help that when the 850 was introduced, it could lay claim to being one of the safest cars on the road, but by the time the P2 came around, a lot of cars were nearly as safe. Volvo has yet to fully shed the legacy of its ownership under Ford, which ended in late 2009, with all its current models built on two Ford platforms. The upcoming XC90 will see their first indigenously developed chassis since the P2 went out of production.

Unlike the 850, which could convincingly capitalize on its predecessors’ strengths while avoiding most of their weaknesses, subsequent cars have been of diluted character while making numerous concessions to style and luxury, making them unviable options for the families for which their basic engineering makes them an ideal choice. Despite its then-novel technology, the final Volvo to wear its boxiness with pride still shows its maker’s still shows its maker’s genuine character better than models two decades newer.

37 Comments

Nice find. That car is near identical to the one my dad special ordered. It came in to Lundahl’s in March of ’93 and my first glimpse of it was when he picked me and my brother and sister up from school in it. I felt so cool hopping into that brand new sport sedan in front of all my classmates! His was Nautic Blue just like this one, with Taupe leather (almost an off-white), five-speed manual, 6-disc CD changer and moonroof. It also had the Winter Package with heated seats and the little wipers on the headlights, which I loved. I think he got the 5-speed because the restoration of his Porsche 356 wasn’t yet complete and he was wanted something sporty in the meantime! It had a firmer ride than the 940, and my brother would get carsick if he rode in the back too long, so when we’d go up to the lake he usually rode in Mom’s Grand Caravan ES. The 850 replaced his black over saddle ’91 940SE Turbo, which my grandmother bought and which later became my first car. He traded the 850 in on a 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition. We saw the Jeep on the turntable at the ’95 Chicago Auto Show and he just had to have it!

That was actually his next-to-the-last Volvo. He eventually traded the Jeep for a black-over-black V70R wagon. That wagon was a ball of fire; by the time he got that one I was old enough to drive it!

This is what parks next to my mates place an 850 Tom WalkinshawRacing made them corner rather well but stock no they wont follow a 405 along a twisty road neither will BMW’s effort but rather these seemed to sell on their relationship to the boxes of yore.

My ex BIL had a yellow wagon.A waste of a good car,he took off like he was a drag racer from lights and went round corners at 15 mph.
The wagon raced in British Touring Cars,as far as I know the only wagon to race and win(I’m sure a CC reader will correct me if wrong!)

The 850 does not have a MacPherson strut front suspension. It has an A arm for the lower control arm and the sway bar does not locate the lower control arm. The sway bar triangulating the lower link is the defining feature of the MacPherson strut suspension.

It’s widely called a MacPherson strut. The hallmark of a MacPherson strut suspension, regardless of whether or not the sway bar is used as a locating member, is whether or not the body of the strut itself locates the wheel. Some cars without front anti-roll bars are said to have a MacPherson strut suspension.

Sorry but no, the fact that the dampener or shock locates the upper end of the suspension defines it as a strut suspension. The MacPherson strut is an evolution of the Chapman strut and what MacPherson got the patent for was his unique system where the sway bar became a locating link for the lower control arm.

“After General Motors discontinued its light car project, MacPherson left the company and went to work with Ford. He took his ideas with him, and in 1949, Ford was granted a patent (for which MacPherson received credit as the inventor) for MacPherson’s design. This patent specified that the anti-roll bar doubles as a tension rod.”

Without that aspect it is just a strut suspension no matter the fact that many people call any strut style suspension a MacPherson strut.

“Longitudinal movement of the outer end of the suspension arm 41, and accordingly the lower end of the wheel supporting bracket 43, is controlled by means of a stabilizer bar indicated generally by the reference character 6|. As best seen in Figure 1, the stabilizer bar has a central transversely extending straight portion 62 and integral thrust arms 63 extending diagonally rear weirdly; therefrom and terminating in short longitud’inally-extending end portions 64. Each end portion is threaded and extends through a pair of rubber bushings 65 mounted in a bore 66 formed in the boss 53 of the transverse suspension-arm; and is rigidly clamped thereto by means of nuts 31 provided at opposite sides of the boss 53.”

If you want to nitpick, you may be correct, but most prominent publications do not differentiate between a MacPherson strut located by a lateral arm & a sway bar and a MacPherson strut located by an A-arm.

However, this sort of pedantry doesn’t change our understanding of one of Volvo’s most historically significant models.

The UK Consul Zephyr range used the true McPherson strut the sway bar located the strut. That link desribes Peugeot as using mac struts they dont at least my 406 didnt and my Xsara uses a smaller version of the same identical to the 306 it aint McPherson strut either.

The reason Volvo was cash-strapped in the early 90s was because they spent $2 billion dollars on the all-new body, suspension and drivetrain for the 850. They literally bet the farm. As dealers we were nervous too–both about how our rather conservative clientele were going to react to the switch to FWD and how well Volvo would execute, given that every single component and system in this car was not only new, but also so very different from everything that had gone before.

We needn’t have worried. Strangely, given Volvo’s long history of often excruciatingly incremental evolution, I will always regard the sea-changing 850 as the company’s most impressive achievement. I grew up in the car business–my father had a GM store and then a Chrysler store and I had a couple of Asian franchises in addition to Volvo–but I have never seen a new car model introduced with even half as much new content as the 800-series that was as problem-free from the get-go. Sure the car was sold for a year or so in Europe before crossing the pond, but it wasn’t long enough to correct any major defects. Fact is, there weren’t any. They really did sweat the details on this car. As was noted, the problems with this platform’s variants all came later, mostly under Ford’s stewardship, when there was intense pressure to cut costs.

My long attachment to Volvo began the day my father–a retail salesman at the time–took me for a spin in a new 1800 when I was 6. A couple of decades later, I had my own 1800 (a ’73 ES) … and a dealership. But I was never as optimistic about Volvo’s future as I was following the 850 intro. Most of our traditional customers loved it and it brought a lot of people in who wouldn’t have considered the brand previously. And in Canada at least, it was well-priced. In 1993 the base model with standard winter package (optional in the US), sunroof, dual-zone ECC, dual airbags and ABS stickered just under CDN$30k. A genuine value in our market at that time.

After several very good years however, some worrisome signs began to appear. Despite having spent the cash to update the Halifax assembly plant to produce front-drive product, rumours began to circulate that Volvo was going to close it, ending over 30 years as a domestic manufacturer in Canada. And in Sweden, where top brass were fretting that they would never again be able to afford to develop an all-new platform on their own, it became an open secret that they were looking for a buyer. So when a lucrative offer came along, I sold out. Barely a year later, the Halifax assembly plant was shuttered and soon after that Volvo was taking its orders from Dearborn.

I always like to think of the 850 (as well as its name later in life, S70) as the bridge between old and new. Switching to front-wheel drive, yet retaining the boxy shape of its predecessors. Probably the car I most associate with “Volvo sedan” from my childhood.

By the way, I love that 740 Turbo ad; never seen that one before. Dad had one just like it, an ’88, but it was fire engine red with beige leather. It was the first car we had with an air bag. I loved that car!

The V70 (wagon) was merely replaced in this market by the XC70 instead of being sold alongside it. The first XC70 was very popular, the second generation (as you pictured) also, the third (and current one) seemingly less so although it is a nice drive, especially in turbo form, the standard engine is a bit underpowered. Either way it matches what Audi has done with the A4 (now available as allroad only) and Subaru with the Legacy wagon (Outback only form factor since 2010), even though all three still sell their standard (-height) wagons in other markets. Heck, even Saab starting selling the 9-3 wagon as a jacked up pseudo-SUV wagon right at the end.

I had a 1993 850 GLT at one point, while I was in college. It was a pleasure and pain to own at the same time.

My ’93 was originally purchased in the fall of 1997 for my mother to travel back and forth between the local hospital in our town and home visits. The car had 42k miles on it at the time my parents bought it. It was the car that started my near-lifelong addiction to Volvo. My dream of owning and driving the car became a reality in 2002, when my mom bought a ’99 S70 and I was given the ’93 to drive at college. It had 91k miles at that point.

The ’93 car was fun to have and drive – when it was working properly. It routinely frustrated and infuriated me when it acted up, which was a lot. Over time, I experienced a host of problems that are well-known in the Volvo community – the a/c evaporator, front wheel hubs, motor mounts, the rear main seal, power seat cables breaking, and various electrical issues (including the doors unlocking by themselves while I was driving some VIPs in the car). The worst part of that car was the transmission – in early 2005, it started to slip and shift poorly. The car had 112k miles on it at that point. I was then faced with a tough decision – replace the transmission or sell the whole car. When I first received the 850 I had vowed to keep it forever, so I decided to have the tranny replaced at great expense. The decision was totally made moot when I was in a bad accident a few weeks after New Year’s, which resulted in the car being totaled.

A week after the accident, I purchased another 850, this one a 1996 that is visually identical to the ’93, white with tan interior. I still own the ’96 and it has a mere 94k miles on it. After driving it daily during my last year in college I decided to relegate it to fair-weather use only, as I felt it was too nice to expose to the elements on an everyday basis. I think I’ve put just 600 miles on it in the last year alone. I will say that the ’96 is much improved and way more reliable than the ’93 was, but both cars are nowhere near as bulletproof or dependable than my current daily driver, a ’91 740.

The ’93 850s are a car I tell Volvo newcomers to avoid, due to the many issues and problems from that first year. The best of the breed are ’96 and ’97 models.

My first Volvo was also a 1993 Volvo 850 GLT I bought a few years ago when I was also in college and just as you it has also started my (likely) lifelong classic Volvo obsession.

I love this car so much but you are SPOT-ON with the issues. I’ve got a front hub roaring as we speak I need to tend to soon, replaced numerous mounts, ECC gone out, spring seats shot AGAIN and yes indeed the transmission was the worse issue. Slipping bad with the issue only continually progressing until I too finally bit the bullet and had the transmission replaced as well (with a ‘96 tranny).

At the used Volvo parts store they told me that the ‘93 was a year in itself for the transmission and while later models will work (by wiring up an extension for the plug) the ‘93 model had crap trannys. Alas, with the ‘96 tranny my OG ‘93 850 is finally shifting well! Had the rear main seal replaced as well, let’s hope that holds!

With the amount of money I’ve put into her so far I sometimes regret falling into the loving trance this 850 has got me in but nonetheless I too will be vying to keep her until the very end!

Those are some pretty flamboyant ads Volvo printed, this coming from a Swedish-American. I would love to own a practical, safe, dependable Volvo, but only 5 are for sale within 100 miles of my locale. And I’m in Swedish territory! The Buicks pictured are much more representative of Swedish-Americans might I add 🙂

Outstanding article on a car I’ve always liked a lot and thought I was familiar with. I didn’t realize how make-or-break the 850 was for Volvo at the time, although I guess that always goes with the territory of being a small independent. Plus, I’d never really given tons of thought to just how much of the 850 was made from scratch. I didn’t know it utilized a beam axle in the rear either, and that staggered design is really interesting. Didn’t the Renault 5/Le Car use something that was basically a cruder take on the same principle?

The comparison to GM’s downsizing/FWD-ification effort is also pretty interesting. I see so many parallels between them – the drawings for the 850 concept with the sleeker hood line even have a resemblance to the ’92 Seville, which was being developed around the same time. All the articles this week have really driven home how “American” Volvo has traditionally been in many ways.

I was so in love with the 850 T5-R and 850R when they were new (still am), and the BTCC wagons were the coolest. From my perspective as an adolescent at the time, Volvo was kicking ass left and right in the mid-90s. They made cool, fast cars and I saw lots of rich people driving them.

The one point where I have to disagree, and disagree hard, is that subsequent Volvos have been lacking character. Concessions to style and luxury? Yes, but tell me what car this couldn’t be said about from the mid-90s onwards? I thought the first generation S80 and S60 were both incredibly good looking cars and an appropriate evolution of traditional Volvo styling. The hump trunk was a clever way to deal with the necessity of cars getting taller and I think it looks great. I’m not sure what things look like moving forward, with Geely pulling the strings, but I really liked pretty much all Volvos from the Peter Horbury-era, even the XC90.

I definitely understand your contention. They were certainly good looking, quick cars. But people didn’t buy Volvos for their sexiness, really. The newer cars looked great, but weren’t readily definable as what ppl expected from the brand, and not everyone can be sleek and sexy, nor can everyone be BMW. It’s as if Volvo took the 850, removed a lot of the grit and road feel (effectively making the S60 a luxury car), and aimed it directly at the likes of the 3-series without being able to back it up with competitive dynamics. Meanwhile, most everything was getting to the point that it was safe on paper, so it was hard to determine what the cars stood for. Not everyone appreciates subtle, Scandinavian design, after all.

I’m wondering how many they would have been able to sell on traditional Volvo virtues though. In the current world, subtlety is basically a lost art among the electronic-whiz-bang-look at me attractions that are all around us, and as you said yourself safety became a hard sell as everyone else caught up to where Volvo had been all along. I’ve never even ridden in an S80, and only have a brief amount of time in two 1st-gen S60 models, but those seemed well thought-out and pleasant to drive (with absolutely fantastic seats in the one with the sport package). Not exciting, but the one I drove wasn’t even a T5, let alone an R version. And it still had some zip and didn’t handle badly. The one S40 I’ve been in though…now that makes me wonder why Volvo even bothered and why anyone bought them. I rode in it back-to-back with one of the mentioned S60’s (car shopping with a friend) and, while the S40 looked good, the cabin was full of unpleasant plastics, low-grade materials, cramped, and just generally a joyless place to be compared to the very pleasant S60 cabin.

As to the 850 at hand…I’ll agree that it may have been the last “real” Volvo and it’s still a favorite of mine. Not out of the question that I’ll own one at some point–make it a wagon though. And an 850R would be amazing…it may not be able to keep up with an M3 on a twisty road, but show me an M3 wagon and then we’ll talk.

When we were all trashing Mercedes-Benz’ newer efforts in another CC article awhile back, I started thinking pretty hard about the changes they went through in the late 90s/early 00s and why such a storied and successful marque felt the need to drastically change their formula in the face of constant success. Was it just greedy ambition trying to wrap it’s claws around more volume at any cost? Maybe that’s part of it, or maybe that’s just the “gotta keep moving” nature of the car biz and the change was sparked by something else. I can’t believe that it was solely penny-pinching and losing touch that got them here, because there is passion, attention to detail and engineering prowess on display in the newer models – just not in the form we’ve come to expect from before – and the approach M-B took seems very similar to what Volvo’s done in many ways.

When the 850 was new, it was still a big deal to have power windows or a sunroof in a car. What made it a “luxury” item beyond that? Some fake wood, leather, a pricetag… well, of course, we know there are plenty of other criteria that should count for something, but I think they matter to less and less people as they years go by – especially in a world where most car buying research is done via JPEGs. Safety was a big draw for both, and that became a moot point once all cars met and exceeded (roughly) the same standards. Build quality was another one, but there was such a marked improvement across the board during that timeframe that this also became somewhat irrelevant. It didn’t help that both M-B and Volvo started cheapening-out around the same time their competitors were rapidly catching up, but I’m not sure how much of a difference it would’ve made anyway.

If Volvo were to build a car like the 850 today, what would it even be? A more restrained Toyota Avalon, maybe? A squarer Buick Regal? Robert Kim suggests Subaru below, which might attract a similar crowd, but I don’t think the cars really share much in execution or feel. Everyone has moved so far upmarket that the niche Volvo and lesser Mercedes models historically fit into doesn’t really exist anymore. Not the way it did 15-20 years ago, anyway.

Maybe I’m wrong, but can anyone picture most people even considering the advantages a modern interpretation of the classic, sensible German or Swede would have over a much cheaper Japanese/American car that was about 90% as good in every way? On the top end, leasing has massively changed the game and brought more lusty cars that would’ve been considered risky and expensive headaches at one time squarely onto Volvo’s old turf.

Anyway, regardless of all that… on a personal level, I’ll always love the traditional, “real” Benzes and Volvos way more than what came later. There’s absolutely no comparison as far as I’m concerned. And part of me still wishes both had stuck to the script even if they went down in flames. But I’m also very willing to accept the flash, the hi-tech gizmos and the blistering performance that have replaced the understated refinement of yore. A lot of the “techy” stuff in new cars is pretty cool if you’re willing to give it a chance. Plus, both of them seem to be improving, at least a little, in terms of build quality and reliability. If things kept going the way they were in the early Ford/DaimlerChrysler days, I wouldn’t be so optimistic now. Hopefully their darkest days are behind us, and they’ll keep refining their craft into a happy compromise between old and new.

Perry Shoar

Posted June 4, 2014 at 5:44 AM

Yes, CC was down for a while, but not to worry, as it’s up now and we have knowledgable people we can turn to when such things occur.

I think that Volvo and Saab, unlike Benz, were established more as something closer to basic, family-oriented transportation and were forced upmarket. I think Robert Kim’s suggestion that a more honest Volvo share qualitative aspects with a Subaru is pretty spot on. Subaru has moved only slightly upmarket, but not excessively so; a good number of their cars remain in reach of the middle class.

I’m sure Volvo and Saab were dealing with thinner profit margins and therefore, had to go the luxury route, but when it gets to the point that you’re competing with truly premium marques, you need to back it up with genuine substance. I.E., not transverse five and six cylinder engines on top of gigantic tires that compromise maneuverability in town, not slow-reacting, fragile Haldex AWD systems and not using a family-car architecture to chase after the likes of the 3-series.

Subaru offers a solid car in modest trim, but with unique engineering characteristics, much like Volvo used to. It would’ve been best for Volvo (and Saab) to have focused more (if at all possible) on offering cars with lower specification and a modest market position. And I believe they might have tried to do so if management at Ford (who, given their expectations, should’ve given them $$ to develop a rear-drive architecture) hadn’t been so insistent that they move upmarket. As it was, they should’ve recognized that cars like the 760/960/850R were never their bread and butter. Offering a little-changed 850 in non-turbo, basic trim through the mid ’00s might’ve been a nice way to offer an alternative to compete with the VW Passats and V6 Accords of this world.

Your points at the end of the article and here ring quite true to me, especially after spending last summer in Sweden and visiting Gothenburg. I got to have an interesting conversation with a brand/advertising consultant who works for Volvo, I believe including on Volvo’s “Made in Sweden” ad campaign in China, which emphasized the good things that everyone thinks about Sweden (environmental friendliness, timeless design, safety, etc.) and was quite well-received. When he asked me about Volvo’s current image in the U.S., I made similar points about Volvo’s U.S. image of safety, durability, and well thought out design being still well remembered, but diluted by progress in the rest of the market, and Subaru being the successor among Volvo’s traditional buyers. It was one of those rare moments when someone’s face sinks right in front of you – he found it that badly dismaying to hear. It definitely hit close to home for him.

Very informative and interesting article. I’m an 850 fan, though have a preference for the 740/940. Think this video is great though, and clearly shows why the car’s safety reputation is so well deserved……

I have learned quite a lot over Volvo week. Volvo was never really in my line of vision and I never really paid attention to just when the conversion to fwd occurred. Like some others here, I never got just how big of a deal this car was for Volvo.

They were nice looking cars (except the ones with the yellow paint)but rubbish in the reliability department. Things from prematurely breaking timing belts to cooling system issues that even Volvo techs cannot fix correctly the first time to unreliable motors make this a car to be avoided if you are a person that wants to get his/her first Volvo.

This car also marked the end of the reliable and easy(cheap) to fix Volvo. Most 240/740/940’s still out there look decent(or at least with a small amount of money can be made to look decent again) by contrast most of the Volvo 850 still around are completely beat up.

Great writeup! Summarises perfectly how Volvo entered the modern world.

850s have a particular meaning to me: my stupid adventure with an old Jetta aside, my first real car was 850. It had been my grandfather’s car for 13 years and he gave me driving lessons in it, and in 2011 he found that if he’d still want to buy a new car, he’d better do it soon. Gladly, he’s still there and enjoying the ’05 V70 Turbo he bought.

The car was a dark green wagon version from ’94, one of the first updated models with the smaller headlamps. It had a 2.4L 10v engine, which is the least powerful of the 5-cylinder engines but is often named as having the purest, smoothest sound, and boy it did. Driving through tunnels was so much fun!
Despite having the base engine, I never felt it needed more power. Fast and comfortable on the motorway, no heavy loads or trailers, good handling given its size and plenty of steering feedback due to its well-dosed non-intrusive power steering.
It was big, too, for European standards that is. When hosting a summer camp, I managed to cram the luggage of about 15 people into it, and still it had no problem climbing up the steep hills of the Eifel mountains. I took it on quite a few trips, just because it was possible.
Of course it also had its downsides: it was thirsty for fuel in all circumstances. 9L/100km on the motorway was the best it could do. It also liked oil and because the front tyres bore a lot of weight they wore out quickly, too. Comes with owning a big car.
Eventually, the car was sold exactly because the running cost was just too high for what it was used for. In its place came a much smaller, lighter, more economical Seat.

During that same time, my mother owned a ’00 V70. It had exactly the same 2.4L 5-cyl engine but weighed 200kg more, and it was noticeable. Compared to the 850, the V70 just felt bloated, its handling was much poorer, the steering and clutch were way too light, it felt much smaller inside despite the tan interior (which felt el cheapo) and it had a lot more issues. It seems Volvo addressed those issues though since my grandfather’s ’05 (updated) V70 feels much tighter again and is more economical.

Today’s Volvos unfortunately have nothing of the specific Volvo-ness that made the 850 stand out. In my view, it seems the 850 combined the best of both worlds: a truly competitive modern car which was valued for its virtues (rather than its quirkiness à la 240 by that time) but which stayed true to its Volvo roots.